Uttarakhand High Court
The Vardhman Developers vs Union Of India And Others on 26 July, 2017
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1799 of 2017
The Vardhman Developers .........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others ........Respondents
Present:- Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the
Union of India/respondent no. 1.
Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
The petitioner before this Court has challenged the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appeals-I, Meerut, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on ground of delay as the appellate authority has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of one month.
2. The petitioner has come before this Court with a plea that at the moment, he has no other remedy but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in order to support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nelly Garments Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India & others passed in Special Civil Application No. 14778 of 2014 on 18.12.2014.
3. Order dated 18.12.2014 has been perused by this Court.
4. In the said case, in an extraordinary jurisdiction, where the delay was only for a period of one day considering that it was an extraordinary circumstances where the Court felt that injustice would be 2 done in that case as for a period of one day the delay has not been condoned by the appellate authority, the matter was heard on merits. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was of the view that matter should be heard on condonation of delay.
5. This Court is with the petitioner inasmuch as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a given case which has such an extraordinary circumstances as the one before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked and in a befitting case, the delay is liable to be condoned but in the present case, it is not a case of extraordinary circumstances which would justify the delay which is of 101 days. The only reason given by the petitioner before this Court for delay is that his employee had changed.
6. The petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
7. Consequently, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition stands dismissed in limine.
8. It is, however, made clear that in case an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the petitioner makes ground for condonation of delay, it is expected that the Tribunal will look into the matter in accordance with law.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.07.2017 Ankit/